User talk:Felix Omni/archive7
sockpuppets (selected portions only) Never accuse another user of being a sockpuppet merely based on their knowledge of the Wiki and its past history. Assume Good Faith until proven otherwise. Not only is it rude, but it creates unnecessary tension and can lead to drama. Moreover it is a quick way to make enemies. (T/ ) 23:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC) :Uh huh. 01:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :I suppose I shouldn't point out the following things: #By accusing me of accusing him (them) without good reason, you have also not assumed good faith. How would you presume to know what drives my actions? #I almost immediately amended my statement on Banjthulu's talk page, as I realized it was rather blunt. I do not pretend to comprehend your rationale for disregarding that. #When people (including me) accused User:Light Kitty of being Warwick's sock puppet, you did not give a tinker's cuss, so to speak. #I don't care about making enemies any more than I do about making friends. 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::I should also point out that I was involved with the "accusations" of sockpuppetry. Though, I was more or less joking... accept for Light Kitty. -- [[User:Isk8|''I~sk8]] (T/ 02:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC) #You did accuse them without good reason. To paraphrase, "no user that new could possibly know of such old Wiki affairs". Therefore, the conclusion is automatically that the user is a sockpuppet. That is a breach of AGF. You made accusations, and me stating that as a matter of fact is not "accusing" you. I don't have to accuse you of something you did. Moreover, your motives are irrelevant: accusations of sockpuppetry are always bad. No good can come of such witch-hunts. Who gives a fuck, anyways, if an old user comes back as a new account? The only time sockpuppets cause trouble is when it is a User:Stabber-like situation...the sockpuppet throws votes, creates drama with themselves, etc. Neither Banthjulu nor Dr.R.Phalange is doing any such thing, and thus you have no right to even bring up such a subject. #Apologizing is always nice and I am glad that you did so. But that does not mean I can tell you that your actions were wrong anyways. If I ban a fellow admin that I disagree with, and then later apologize and reverse the ban because I was personally involved and it was abuse of powers, I still ought to be told off and get punished for the deed. #Who the heck is User:Light Kitty? I am not omniscient, Felix, and if there have been other such cases of this behavior that I do not notice then that is not my fault. I only happen to have Banthjulu on my Watchlist, hence why I noticed this incident and brought it up. I will go and look into that incident, though from your wording it seems that it is already done with so anything I say may be irrelevant now. #Good for you; that means you have no qualms about me saying I have no reason to explain my past actions to you any more. I hope your Rohan socializing is faring much better, since you have no friends left here. Not that you care - "the Wiki is not a place for private discussions". We are all business here. (T/ ) 22:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC) I apologize. I crossed the line there. It is evident that I am too personally involved with you. I ought to let someone else handle this and other situations from here on out. (T/ ) 22:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :No, that's okay. It's about time you showed some honesty. 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::That's an uncalled for response. Entropy is obviously somewhat distraught and you respond by calling her honesty into question? Just let it die. Banjthulu is better than you 18:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::Oh, hi. What are you doing here? 18:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::Felix is my friend on this wiki, Entropy :) — Warw/Wick 18:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::::Actually, I suppose it was uncalled for. Oh well. 18:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::Just as you reserve the right to delete my comments, I "reserve the right... to express my opinion to the best of my ability." Banjthulu is better than you 18:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::::Okay then. 18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Why do you bother restoring the section If it's just a biased bastardization of the actual discussion? -Auron 05:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :"Selected portions only" part actually points out the fact you are censoring people, while had you not it wouldn't be apparent a discussion you didn't like took place at all.-- 05:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::Prepare for censorship, censorship imminent. 05:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::Shut up. 05:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::Technically, you're breaking the policy only letting certain comments through, because thats technically editing comments (Giving people answers, but not the thing that the answers were to, for instance). 12:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::Felix knows he's censoring, he's admitting it, but he's trying to explain his actions while also trying to let the situation cool down. Granted, it's by making the arguement absent, but absence helps people cool down. And which policy addresses how talk pages are to be used/editted? JonTheMon 15:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::Censorship is hardly the best way to cool down a situation. If one wants a situation to be "cooled down" then they should stop being involved with it at all. Removing parts that are unfavorable just makes the censor look biased and unwilling to be wrong. Had that person let the situation alone then it would appear that person was mature enough to let the situation drop.-- 16:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::Yes, but how often do things "get dropped" then something on your talkpage stares up in your face and pisses you off? Or someone else off? Now, I'll say that the better course of action would have been to just archive and let it fade away ('course, the discussion could still be active, not allowing this...) instead of making the conversation just show his "better side". JonTheMon 16:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::Alright. I archived only to prevent a discussion of religion, which would have turned into a flame war, as well as making me extraordinarily angry. You could say I archived for my own health- high blood pressure, etc. I then restored the part of the discussion pertaining to sock puppets, because it was valid, and what's more, it was not concluded. I will not host a religious debate on my talk page. Ever. 18:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC) You You're making the same mistakes as May :] 12:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :And you are May. 18:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::Or James, or perhaps the other brother. Who knows :P --- -- (s)talkpage 18:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::Bran doesn't play GW ;). — Warw/Wick 18:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::Or exist. 18:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::Cynicism is expected, but not needed. — Warw/Wick 18:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::: *like this, Felix? ;) Yeah, Wikicode is a bitch sometimes. Blah --- -- (s)talkpage 18:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::That's the curse of prefixing with an asterisk. 18:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Rohan Z0mg, I liek, playeed it. RT sez it looks like a korean hack and slash. :p — Warw/Wick 18:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :It is Korean, but it's fairly sophisticated. 18:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::Oh, gimme your IGN so I can powerlevel you and stuff. 18:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::Maywick. — Warw/Wick 18:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::K, mine's Nephenee- cuz she's a tank, of course. 18:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::Mm, Maywick got deleted. I'm Warwick. — Warw/Wick 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::Find Player and Add Friend aren't showing any results for Warwick. Are you on the correct server (Silva)? They don't carry over. It's kind of stupid imo. 18:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::Orite. Silva was Full. :( I'm maywick again then. — Warw/Wick 18:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::Even when a server says Full, you can still use it. 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::Kay. — Warw/Wick 18:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::Nephenee is most definitely a tank. Especially when you give her things like adept and gamble :P 70+ percent critical chance ftw ^_^ '¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 20:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::Precisely correct! :D 21:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::Where You Goned now? I know you're online, but you're not on gw and you're not on msn, and you're not on Rohan! :o.. Its a tricky one here! — Warw/Wick 21:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Felix and May sitting in Silva. Which is probably from the Latin word for Tree. Go figure where this is going. --- -- (s)talkpage 21:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC) :/slap — Warw/Wick 21:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC) ::Ogudjk. 21:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Block? As per the template, i disagree with this users privaleges being removed, why exactly are we banning Felix now?-- - (Talk/ ) 19:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :I believe the issue mainly lies with this page, the most recent archive, and Banjthulu's talkpage. 19:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::But that's all over now, and as far as i can see, has nothing to with with R.Phalange :S-- - (Talk/ ) 19:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :Tacit NPA against myself (see latest archive) and against Entropy. Ignoring AGF toward Phalange and myself. General asshattery (as noted on the ban template). To be honest, I think Felix needs a little while to calm down; I'm a (at least for all intents and purposes) relatively new user, and I don't know Felix very well, but it seems to me that his contributions have been tainted by his recent spat with Entropy, and I think he needs a chance to take stock of his priorities. Banjthulu is better than you 19:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::(edit conflict) Looking through the history here is so confusing with all the removings and re-addings. I am beggining to see the need for that archival thing jedi was working on *sigh* - eitherway, i think Felix should be allowed his chance to "cool down" and only be blocked if he abuses that and instigates further 'drama'-- - (Talk/ ) 19:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::(edit conflict) It has nothing to do with you, either, so why are you even commenting? Yeah, that logic is pretty bad. :::So hang on, you want to force a cool-down without blocking, but block him if he doesn't cool down? Yeah, that logic is pretty bad. --[[User:R.Phalange|'''Dr R. Phalange]] 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::(edit conflict) It's been what, a full week since Felix was demoted (and if what I've been told is true, he was having issues well before he was demoted)? From what I can tell, the experience has taught him nothing; in fact, it's poisoned his relations with several users (and in some ways toward the wiki in general I think). That's why I think he needs a bit of time away from the Wiki. Entropy, herself, apparently realized that she was becoming too personally involved, etc., and banned herself because of it. Felix needs that same opportunity to gain a little perspective. Banjthulu is better than you 19:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::::(edit conflict) No, i don't want to "force" a cool down, i want to ALLOW a period in which felix is given a chance to cool down, as this whole thing appears to be over. However, if it isn't, then clearly a block is necessary-- - (Talk/ ) 19:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::... ::::::^ that's all I have to say on that matter. --[[User:R.Phalange|'Dr' R. Phalange]] 19:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::Seems to me that Banjthulu and R.Phalange are the ones who are keeping this issue alive. I see no reason to ban Felix again. —Dr Ishmael 19:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::His demotion was supposed to cool him down. Clearly, it did not. 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::Whatever, let's just all stop talking about this now, i think that would be best-- - (Talk/ ) 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::I'd love to, I really would, and if I thought the issue would go away on its own I would in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, I don't, and not talking about the issue isn't gonna solve anything. As long as people have things to say (i.e. until we've reached a polemical impasse), the discussion should and will go on. Getting everything into the open is much better than nursing our resentment. Banjthulu is better than you 19:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::If you have something personal against Felix, then take it to email or IM or something off the wiki. We don't need the drama here. —Dr Ishmael 19:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::I have nothing personal against him; besides, I'm leaving to go on vacation in a few hours, so I really don't care how this turns out. This isn't about anything personal, this is about discussing a ban tag. I gave my honest unbiased (as much as is humanly possible at least) opinion. When someone questioned my opinion, I defended it (it is a discussion after all). If I thought this was personal/I could not give an unbiased opinion, I wouldn't have posted here. Banjthulu is better than you 19:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::::Unfortunately, your opinion seems greatly biased against Felix. If you were truly unbiased, then why didn't you say anything at all about this comment on your talk page? That is a much clearer violation of NPA than anything Felix has said since then. —Dr Ishmael 20:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::::Simply put? It wasn't directed toward me. As such, I felt it was Felix's prerogative to notify an Admin if he so chose. Banjthulu is better than you 20:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::"No, that's okay. It's about time you showed some honesty." Yeah, obviously I'm the one holding the grudge. Banjthulu is better than you 19:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC) One last (hopefully) comment from me: it should be noted that when I pointed out to Felix that his comments toward Entropy had gone too far, he acknowledged that such was probably the case, but showed no remorse about it nor any inclination to amend his statement. Banjthulu is better than you 19:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :(edit conflict) Ok everyone this has gotten a bit out of hand, the situation is no longer an issue since it does seem that twp particular users are prolonging it. If you will stop adding on to it, it will resolve its self and there will be no need for admin intervention. Something like this does not really need the admins attention as the situation is dying out and by requesting a ban you have only prolonged it. I suggest that you all try to calm down a bit and just ignore the situation; it will blow over --''Shadowphoenix'' 20:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::if somone has called for somone elses blocking it does need admin attention, they need to assess the situation. It hasn't really gotten out of hand, since Felix hasnt even said anything yet.. — Warw/Wick 20:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::Incidentally, Ishmael, are you authorized to remove that ban tag? 20:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::I can't answer for Ishmael, but given the (semi)autonomy of Admins on this site, I'd say he is. That said, another Admin could still come along and challenge Ishmael's "ruling" presumably. Banjthulu is better than you 20:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::As an admin, yes, I am authorized to make decisions regarding user banning. My primary role may be GWiki Janitor, but Entropy never said that would be my only role. I would welcome other admins' input on this matter, though, and I realize now that the best way to get that is probably to put the ban tag back up for now. —Dr Ishmael 20:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::::I'm sorry, what's going on? 20:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::Try reading. --[[User:R.Phalange|'Dr' R. Phalange]] 21:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::That was most unhelpful, thank you. I feel Banjthulu is just upset because of the copyright business and because I've publically stated my disapproval of atheism, which obviously is not a bannable offense or indeed an offense at all. I know very little about Phalange, except that his name is evidently not a reference to the Lebanese. 21:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::The user(s) in question is not Banjthulu, nor is it me; it's about you. Not only is your response incorrectly assuming that any argument against you is emotionally motivated or that your knowledge of me and/or Banjthulu is pertinent to your requested blocking, but it also proves your arsehattery and hostility. --[[User:R.Phalange|'Dr' R. Phalange]] 21:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::I'm sorry you feel that way. 21:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::I do not feel, I think. I just regret that you don't. --[[User:R.Phalange|'Dr' R. Phalange]] 21:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::I don't think you've said a single thing to me that didn't contain an insult. It's really quite off-putting. 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::Any admin is free to tell me off or block me if they think my actions are inappropriate. --[[User:R.Phalange|'Dr' R. Phalange]] 21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC) (Reset indent) That's unnecessary. My point is that I have no reason to take you or your concerns seriously, since you seem incapable of making a statement without resorting to childish name-calling. If you were truly concerned that my actions are out of line and are harming the community, you would attempt to resolve this more amicably. Yet all of your statements have been inflammatory; you clearly intend to goad me and to escalate this conflict. I do not know what you're trying to accomplish, but I will not walk into this one. 21:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict) (Reset indent) Okay, everyone take a deep breath. No one is going to ban anyone at the moment. Now, anyone who has anything against Felix to say, should provide me links to read myself. Because I don't see anything on this page. "General asshattery" is not a valid block reason (no matter what precedents set by other admins in the past) so you need to give links. Additionally, if this has to do with accusations of sockpuppetry, i thought Entropy already scolded Felix about that. If we are talking about copyright issues, lets talk about that discussion. If we are going to talk about NPA, AGF violations and/or accusations of asshattery, links need to be provided (I'm not hunting them down). Also, remember that the best people to comment are the people who are not personally involved because they are totally non-biased. —[[User:JediRogue|'♥Jedi♥Rogue♥']] 21:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :Oh well, finally I'll create an account to poke my nose in... I think they're talking about User talk:Banjthulu, where Felix is, to be honest, just being a bit of a pain. He's deliberately making an issue of the (ever unclear) fair use matters because, IMO, he doesn't like Banjthulu getting on well with a certain female user. (He's also unnecessarily antagonistic over religion - but then Banjthulu is imlicitly mocking believers so honors even). It's definitely not ban-worthy, but I thought I'd make this comment just so Felix can see how he comes across to a random lurker (pathetic). I feel a bit sorry for him really, but he needs to get a grip and he's only got himself to blame for how he's coming to be regarded.Lurkerabove 00:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC) As far as I can tell (and I've been involved in the Banjthulu talk and read some sockpuppet threads), Felix's behaviour has improved from the one he got banned and demoted for. He has held back on personal attacks (I assume his behaviour towards May is "friendly ribbing" now, as they seem to be at war one minute and best friends the next - May, please correct me if I'm wrong). He still doesn't reflect much on what he writes and manages to offend people ("atheism generally means disrespect and discrimination"), but instead of escalating the conflict he discusses, apologizes and backs off. Archiving the atheism discussion on this page (and posting that he did) was one of his better decisions, a definite improvement on his page deletion that he got banned for. I also support his insistence on Banjthulu getting his/her copyrights straight. I don't see what banning him now would accomplish. There was no damage done, and I see no danger of damage being done in the near future. "Being juvenile on people's talk pages" is hardly a good reason for a ban. Get consensus for GW:WIKIDRAMA and you might have a case. --mendel 00:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Addendum: I don't see NPA mentioned in the ban request (and see no case being made), and I see no support for the alledged GW:YAV violation. --mendel 00:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC) I doubt my opinion means much, because I still respect and like Felix Omni, and don't hold a terrible lot of weight around the wiki but I feel that Felix is mostly a victim of circumstance. With Blue Relik he had shown a bit of uncalled for immaturity, but much of the later drama has come from a few users antagonizing him and picking petty arguments. Felix will make a comment that shows a lack of composure (which is to be expected with the amount of harassment) and will later realize and apologize, for the most part. I feel that although Felix has made occasional mistakes, he's carrying himself well with so many users purposely irritating the issues. — Powersurge360Violencia 00:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC) :I don't think a block is warranted. Even if I did feel there was sufficient cause for a block, if I blocked him the duration would probably have already expired. The sockpuppetry accusations were rude and unwarranted, but if you scroll up a bit he's already gotten told off for it. General asshattery- excusable, if it can even be inflated into an accusation. Seemed more like a discussion with imbued NPAs to me, which warrant a warning, not a ban. I've seen WAY worse than that, by other users and Felix himself. A ban wouldn't help the situation in the slightest. --Shadowcrest 01:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC) ::So, why is the ban template still up, exactly? I mean yeah, it looks quite nice and all, but, 3 admins all seem to agree a block is uneccessary so, remove template?-- - (Talk/ ) 09:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC) :::Gone. —Dr Ishmael 14:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Bah You EC'd me on the Smite Crawlers. :P I was going to be sarcastic and say something about how deadly monks can be while auto attacking. --Macros 22:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :That would be entertaining. I will go revert my edit and you can do yours. 22:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::Gogogo. 22:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::lol >.< I was just going to put it in the edit summary, I was going to remove the note altogether :P --Macros 22:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::Omfg do it (but leave the part about Piercing damage imo) 22:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC) No Happy Birthdays? I hate you all. Q.Q 06:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC) :I have something to say that I can't say. —[[User:JediRogue|'♥Jedi♥Rogue♥']] 06:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC) ::I assumed that was a hint to get on MSN, but you don't seem to be sentient atm. 06:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC) :::Happy Birthday to you :> Haven't checked the birthday page a lot lately, so didn't know... Don't ban me!! ;) --- -- (s)talkpage 14:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC) ::::Where's this birthday page? --[[User:R.Phalange|'Dr' R. Phalange]] 14:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC) :::::User:Shadowphoenix/User Birthdays. --- -- (s)talkpage 14:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!! Here is your Birthday waffles with Whip Cream =D --''Shadowphoenix'' 14:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::: *Gasp* You have a birthday?! --image:GEO-logo.png[[user:Jioruji_Derako| J'ïörüjï 'Ðērākō.>']][[user talk:Jioruji Derako|.cнаt^']] 04:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::As opposed to not having one? >.> 14:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::I could probably look up the unbirthday song for you :P --Shadowcrest 20:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::You mean from Alice in Wonderland? 20:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::That's the one --Shadowcrest 20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::Go for it! 20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC) MARCH HARE: A very merry unbirthday to me MAD HATTER: To who? MARCH HARE: To me MAD HATTER: Oh you! MARCH HARE: A very merry unbirthday to you MAD HATTER: Who me? MARCH HARE: Yes, you! MAD HATTER: Oh, me! MARCH HARE: Let's all congratulate us with another cup of tea A very merry unbirthday to you! MAD HATTER: Now, statistics prove, prove that you've one birthday MARCH HARE: Imagine, just one birthday every year MAD HATTER: Ah, but there are three hundred and sixty four unbirthdays! MARCH HARE: Precisely why we're gathered here to cheer BOTH: A very merry unbirthday to you, to you FELIX: To me? MAD HATTER: To you! BOTH: A very merry unbirthday FELIX: For me? MARCH HARE: For you! MAD HATTER: Now blow the candle out my dear And make your wish come true BOTH: A merry merry unbirthday to you! --Shadowcrest 20:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC) :Tyvm. 20:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Luxon 15k armor tag I left a message on the GuildWiki: Admin Noticeboard about the tag which annoyed me, when I was merely trying to help out by pointing out that it was of poor quality and could be improved upon. I felt your tag was directed at me in an immature manner, and if you have a problem with teenagers on GuildWiki as Users you should let me know on my talkpage. The Noticeboard recommends I inform you, so here you are. -->Suicidal Tendencie 21:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC) :I am a teenager, albeit barely. I'm afraid I fail to see why you're so upset. 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC) User talk:Entropy#So Honestly, Felix, do everyone a favor: crawl into a hole and die. Entropy was just about the only thing holding this Wiki together as near as I can tell, and now is not the time for your petty spite. Grow up! I can honestly say that your actions disgust me more than those of the most inveterate troll and I've seen my fair share of trolls (read: PvXwiki). Never, in my year+ of editing Wikis have I been moved to violate NPA outright (or to knowingly break any policy for that matter...) but... gah!!! [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 14:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. @Admins: I await a ban for NPA. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 14:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC) :That's nice. 18:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC) ::Actually, I suppose I could give a better response than that. Allow me to point out that Entropy has been largely inactive for a number of months, and the wiki certainly did not fall apart, largely due to the efforts of users like myself. Allow me to point out that if you had not been socking and trolling me, the situation would not have arisen. And finally, allow me to point out that the only thing I said after Entropy resigned was that she had not disappointed me. You seem to interpret that as a parting blow of sorts, but I assure you it was more of a compliment than anything. And also, I feel there is no need for a ban. I would encourage people to be honest and express their opinons plainly, and I hope I have the right to pardon transgressions on my own talk page. 18:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC) DE: I suggest you shut up, walk away from the Wiki for awhile, and reflect on what you're trying to accomplish here. No matter what your personal feelings may be about Felix Omni, you must realize that this is not a constructive way to go about improving the Wiki. Don't fall to the same level of behavior that you accuse Felix of practicing, in trying to criticize him. Although I would disagree about which users do the most to keep the Wiki together, I otherwise wholeheartedly agree with Felix's assessment of the situation. Moreover, I think he has every right to speak his mind, without being called out for "petty spite" simply because few others seem to agree with him about my past actions. If anything, I am surprised no one has called an NPA against me - it only goes to show that favoritism does cloud judgments here, including mine. (T/ ) 20:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC) :I disagree, Entropy. Whilst undeniably, some people would be stroppy if you desysopped them and did the only reason they thought it was worthwhile, (Making Auron bcrat), a hell of a lot of his actions over the last two weeks or so have been pretty much trollish. Dunno if its just me, but I think I'm turning into what Felix once was, and he's turning into me. :| — Warw/Wick 20:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC) ::To Felix: Even though Entropy has been largely inactive, everyone still behaved as if she was here. --Helllbringer 20:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC) :::That doesn't make any sense, frankly. Care to explain the ban template, by the way? 20:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC) ::::Your contributions and constant trolling of people. --Helllbringer 20:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC) :::::Oh, that's a good point. People with contributions should always be banned. 20:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC) :::::I fail to see this "constant trolling" you speak of. If I were to speak as a complete objective outsider, I will admit that Felix is less than kind more often than not lately. But, I think this has turned into a case of "reverse discrimination" so to speak, with everyone happy to pile on the anti-Felix bandwagon. "How dare he insult Entropy!", you say. Quite frankly, I am beyond being touched by such things, and I do not mind them, especially as I am no less disgusting in some of my past behavior. Telling a user to go fuck themselves? No matter how annoyed I may have been, that was unacceptable, and the fact that no one even brings that up just proves my point...people are willing to let me off the hook when I seem to toe the line. But if Felix does? People are all over his case, asking him to be banned, etc. ::::::Felix and I have butted heads pretty strongly, and we have our disagreements - but I would like to believe that we still respect the other's intellect and are free to speak our minds. Felix has been proven right on 2 out of 3 sockpuppet accusations; you may think it inappropriate to rub it in my face, and I said so, but frankly he saw what I could not. I was blinded by prejudice and "being too nice". Remember that while we can always bitch and whine about how things are done, in the end it is the results which count. I will acknowledge that Felix's method of conduct perhaps leaves something to be desired, although I still disagree about it being ban-worthy. But aside from that, he remains a valuable and hard-working contributor. Please don't let your personal dislike get in the way of accurately assessing this situation. (T/ ) 20:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::Entropy, perhaps one of the primary reasons for your comment to Felix to have been passed without "NPA NPA NPA" thrown in your face is because you're leaving -- there's no point blocking someone if they are leaving the wiki forevers and evers. --[[User:R.Phalange|'Dr' R. Phalange]] 20:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC) :(edit conflict) I admit that I distanced myself from this issue because I knew my personal bias would get in the way. I like both Entropy and Felix, I never trusted Banjthulu, and because of Banjthulu my respect for DE has plummeted, so I didn't feel I could objectively take any sides. Felix has pardoned the attacks against him (explicitly for DE, and implicitly for Entropy), and Entropy has said repeatedly that Felix's actions are not ban-worthy, so it seems that there's no reason to pursue administrative action in any of these cases. —Dr Ishmael 20:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC) ::Please read my comments on the admin notice board regarding this: linky!—[[User:JediRogue|'♥Jedi♥Rogue♥']] 22:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC) :::Already read it, I was just waiting for you to tell me. <3 22:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC) blocked I've blocked you for three days for wiki disruption. The drama with Entropy was uncalled for and could have been avoided completely. I don't care too much about any drama with Banjulthu, because that account was created to make drama. Again, my contact details are on the admin page if you wish to contest the block. -Auron 10:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)